Dear Patrick,
[email protected] wrote:
Dear Martin,
I'll reformat my mapping FRBR-->CRM, and follow your suggestion of having
"P9a // P9b" to distinguish the directions of properties, instead of my rather
awkward "P9 // P9backward" as in the current version of my mapping.
My proposal is: P9.F // P9.B , not P9a, P9b (that was from the person that
asked me).
I have a further question about E33 Linguistic Object: is this class
regarded as covering exclusively textual objects, or more broadly any kind of
Information Object that has a textual compound (for instance: a lied, an opera,
a movie etc.)? This is a problem I encountered while preparing my mapping; I
took it for granted (because I felt it was conceptually more logical and
consistent) that E33 Linguistic Object was exclusively textual and could not be
instantiated by an opera for instance, and my assumption resulted in a number of
problems. It would be much simpler for me (but would this be consistent?) to
regard an opera or a motion picture or whatever complex work with a textual
compound (however minor as to the work as a whole) as an instance of E33
Linguistic Object.
Thanks,
Best wishes,
Patrick
Normally, CRM classes are not exclusive. Only Persistent Object and Temporal
entity,
Physical Stuff and Conceptual Object are definitely exclusive.
I don't see a problem in characterizing
an Opera a linguistic object. This was also the assumption in Jane Hunter's
merging of MPEG7 with CIDOC CRM. More detailed, one may like to distinguish
parts.
Best,
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(810)391625 |
Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(810)391609 |
Project Leader SIS | Email: [email protected] |
|
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
